No Easy Way Out
Lack of accountability for their actions has allowed western leaders to send the Ukrainian people down a path with a disastrous end point. For the Ukrainians, not for the rest of us.
A pro-Russian account on Telegram posted the above image containing a map of the four Ukrainian oblasts (administrative regions) recently annexed by Russia. РОССИЯ is “RUSSIA” and the text underneath it says “map of southern Russia after carrying out the referendums in the liberated territories.”
In my earlier Substack article titled Grand Strategy, the strategic importance of controlling the area around the Sea of Azov was explained. The integration of Ukraine into NATO would present an enormous threat to Russia in multiple ways, one of which would be placing maritime trade from southern Russia into the Mediterranean in jeopardy in a hypothetical war.
Annexation by Russia of the four oblasts shown in yellow effectively gives them control of the Sea of Azov, guarantees access to Crimea, and effectively make the Black Sea a Russian lake. Interestingly, even in the very pro-Russian forum that was the source of this stylized map the assumption is that annexation stops with those four.
In my not-so-humble opinion the Russians, having gained control of these areas and held referendums on their independence from Ukraine, would have negotiated an end to the fighting. But the Ukrainians have been much more stubborn fighters than the Russians anticipated, and despite large losses of men and equipment they have refused to accept anything less than the complete removal of Russian troops - President Zelensky has even talked about retaking Crimea.
A war the Russians must win
A recent article by Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.) in The American Conservative titled Washington Is Prolonging Ukraine’s Suffering opens with a statement that reflects the idea from my own earlier article (Grand Strategy) about the Russian goals in Ukraine:
Washington’s refusal to acknowledge Russia’s legitimate security interests in Ukraine and negotiate an end to this war is the path to protracted conflict and human suffering. (Macgregor)
The expansion of NATO presents a very real threat both to Russian trade and to military security. Maritime access to the Mediterranean is very significant for Russian foreign trade, and moves being made in Ukraine since 2013 have made it possible to put that trade in great peril. Having a large NATO economy literally adjoining a very long border is also very threatening given the stated intention of many NATO leaders to break up Russia.
And despite the propaganda of much western media, things are not going well for the Ukrainians.
Disaster wrapped in rhetoric is not the way to save the people of Ukraine. The war in Ukraine is not a Call of Duty fantasy. It is an enlargement of the human tragedy that NATO’s eastward expansion created. (Macgregor)
Since the end of the Soviet Union around 1990 America and its allies have been creeping towards Russia incrementally, with each step reducing Russian long term security. The current war is, from the Russian perspective, about the future existence of Russia - so it’s a war they must win.
The NATO ring around Russia
Beginning three decades ago with the breakup of both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, NATO has been moving closer to Russia every few years. Without significant changes in actual borders, dramatic changes have occurred in political alignments in the region.
The Soviet Union: The Soviet Union in the 1980s included Russia as the largest and most dominant state, plus Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the north, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova in the middle, and a group of countries in the southeast that included Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. (We’re disregarding former members in Asia for now.)
The Warsaw Pact: Like NATO, this was a defensive alliance and included the Soviet Union, plus Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia (now two separate countries), Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania.
NATO in 2022: Today NATO touches the Russian border in the north with Estonia and Latvia as members.
All of the former Warsaw Pact countries are part of NATO, along with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - plus Turkey, which controls access to the Black Sea via the Turkish Straits. So the ring of NATO countries around the western border of Russia goes from the Baltic Sea in the north, down through eastern Europe, and around the Black Sea.
Most Russian merchant shipping goes through the Baltic Sea in the north or the Black Sea in the south. Both of these routes can come under threat from NATO, and the only other viable alternative is to ship goods 6,000 miles east to the end of Asia and put them on ships there.
[With two long coastlines separated from potential enemies by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, Americans forget how close Russia’s adversaries are to the Russian border, and how easy it is to block shipping in that region. Imagine what the U.S. government would do if American access to the Panama Canal were suddenly blocked.]
Ukraine: With the Soviet Union breaking up the government of Ukraine held a referendum on independence in 1991 and became, for the first time in its history, an independent country. But the borders of this new country were based on the administrative state created by the Soviets, itself the result of different land transfers from Poland, Romania, Hungary and Russia following each of the World Wars.
In 2013 President Yanukovych rejected an agreement for closer economic ties with the EU, as well as a $17 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This led to protests which became increasingly violent and culminated in the Revolution of Dignity.
A new pro-western (pro NATO) government was elected, but the people in the southeast regions of Ukraine are ethnically Russian and very pro-Russia. They organized their own counter-revolution and held a referendum in which an overwhelming majority voted for independence from the rest of Ukraine.
Ethnically and politically Ukraine is essentially two countries, and this is readily visible from voting patterns, language, and polling. If the “international community” truly cared about the Ukrainian people, 2014 would have been the time to encourage separating the two parts of the country. This was successfully done in Czechoslovakia when it voluntarily dissolved and became the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.
[Side comment: The Russians accuse the Americans of interfering in Ukraine to generate a revolution, and the Americans make essentially the same accusation of Russian interference in the Donbass region. Viewing either of these as simply right or wrong isn’t as practical as seeing all events in terms of Grand Strategy. One of those two countries shares a border with Ukraine, the other does not. Recall Macgregor’s comment about “legitimate security interests” then consider American actions in places like Cuba and Panama. Sometimes we find valuable lessons from the past.]
America leaves no room for compromise
American politicians have escalated their rhetoric, and their promises, to the point where conceding territory to the Russians would be a major blow to belief in American power. In a letter inviting President Zelensky to address the US. Congress Nancy Pelosi wrote:
America and our allies have proudly answered your call: imposing devastating sanctions on Putin and ensuring Ukraine has the resources it needs to win this war.
The fight for Ukraine is the fight for democracy itself. (Pelosi letter, 20 December)
So we’re told “democracy itself” is at stake if the Russians achieve their goals in Ukraine (whatever Pelosi thinks those goals are). This is a stupid statement, to be very generous. “Democracy” doesn’t cease to exist if Russia wins a war.
Both political parties are united in supporting American involvement. Here’s Mitch McConnell telling us the war is America’s number one priority.
President Biden is fully committed as well. He and President Zelensky just held a joint press conference in which Biden reassured everyone that America is in for the duration.
“The American people are with you every step of the way… we will stay with you for as long as it takes,” said Biden, adding, “I have no doubt that we will keep the flame of liberty bright.” (MSN)
This statement might not be appreciated by people in the Donbass who have been fighting for liberty from the government in Kiev for the last eight years. Do they not also have the right of self-determination, or is that reserved only for potential U.S. allies?
Donbass and the Minsk agreements
The mighty Ukrainian military that we’re told will soon send the Russian army running for the hills was unable to control the Donbass, despite those forces being mostly irregular militia types without heavy weapons or air support.
With the Ukrainian military suffering multiple defeats Germany and France helped Ukraine negotiate the Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements (the link is to a detailed explanation by the think tank Chatham House).
Minks 1 was ineffective for many reasons, although the primary one seems to be that the actual people fighting in Donbass (both sides) couldn’t be convinced to stop. So it was followed by Minsk 2:
Minsk-2 is not an easy document to grasp. The product of hasty drafting, it tries valiantly to paper over yawning differences between the Ukrainian and Russian positions. As a result, it contains contradictory provisions and sets out a convoluted sequence of actions. It also has a gaping hole: although signed by Russia’s ambassador to Ukraine, Mikhail Zurabov, the agreement does not mention Russia – an omission that Russia has used to shirk responsibility for implementation and maintain the fiction that it is a disinterested arbiter. (Chatham House)
An article in the magazine Foreign Policy tells us that by the time of Minsk 2 the Ukrainians were getting desperate and agreed to a deal that in hindsight was not very favorable.
Ukraine agreed to the deal, as it was over a barrel after months of fierce fighting. “The Ukrainian military had largely been decimated on the battlefield,” said Kurt Volker, who served as a U.S. special envoy to Ukraine during the Trump administration. (FP)
But years after the signing of Minsk 2 some interesting details have been revealed.
Merkel’s interview in Die Zeit
The German periodical Die Zeit (The Time) generated quite a stir when they published an interview with former German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The interview covered a range of topics, one of which was the war in Ukraine and the impact of the Minsk agreements.
For those who claim there was no intention of integrating Ukraine into NATO, Merkel’s comments indicate this was indeed something being pushed - however she personally didn’t support the move.
[Please excuse the poor quality of the translations here. The original article is in German (obviously) and Google Translate isn’t perfect.]
The initiation of NATO accession in 2008 Ukraine and I thought Georgia was wrong. The countries neither provided the necessary conditions for this, nor was it thought to end what consequences such a decision would have had, both with regard to Russia's actions against Georgia and Ukraine as well as NATO and its rules of assistance. (Die Zeit)
One of those potential consequences Merkel mentions wound up being a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Here we get the part that has everyone excited (emphasis mine throughout):
And the 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. She also used this time to get stronger, as you can see today. Ukraine of 2014/15 is not today's Ukraine. How to fight for Debalzewe ( Railway town in Donbass, Donetsk Oblast, d. Red. ) Seen in early 2015, Putin could easily have overrun her at the time. And I very much doubt that the NATO countries could have done as much as they do today to help Ukraine. (Die Zeit)
So from Russia’s perspective, they might have been better off starting this war in 2015 rather than 2022. Also of note, Russian gas exports were a significant factor in Merkel’s thinking even back in 2014.
It was clear to all of us that this was a frozen conflict, that the problem had not been solved, but that was exactly what gave Ukraine valuable time. Of course, the question can now be asked: Why did you still agree to the construction of Nord Stream 2 in such a situation? (Die Zeit)
Ukraine was demanding the return of Crimea and the fate of the Donbass remained uncertain, yet the Ukrainians still wanted Russian gas transiting their country. Even more interesting, Russia seized Crimea in 2014 and the German permit for Nord Stream 2 was issued in 2018.
On the one hand, Ukraine placed great emphasis on remaining transit countries for Russian gas. She wanted to gas through her area and not through the Baltic Sea. Today it is sometimes pretended that every Russian gas molecule was the devil. It wasn't like that, the gas was contested. On the other hand, it was not the case that the federal government had applied for approval from Nord Stream 2, the companies did. For the federal government and for me, the result was to decide whether we should make a new law as a political act in order to expressly refuse to approve Nord Stream 2. (Die Zeit)
So blocking the pipeline would have meant a special law to block a business investment - at a time when no one was at war. So the pipeline (currently not operating due to sabotage) was approved.
But Putin thinks very far ahead. In 2014 an agreement was reached with Turkey on construction of the TurkStream pipeline, and just this year Putin and Turkish President Erdoğan jointly announced that Turkey will be Russia’s new gas export hub to the west.
It also sounds like “climate friendly” energy policy in other EU countries had an enormous impact on Merkel’s decisions.
On the one hand, such a refusal in combination with the Minsk agreement would have dangerously worsened the climate with Russia in my view. On the other hand, the energy policy dependency arose because there was less gas from the Netherlands, Great Britain and limited production volumes in Norway. (Die Zeit)
This is Grand Strategy in the form of realpolitik1 - Merkel is weighing German interests against the military concerns of the Ukrainians, NATO expansion, energy policy in Europe, and natural gas imports from Russia. In the end the Ukrainians are given enough assistance to keep fighting, but not enough to jeopardize German energy consumption.
Update: 7 January 2023
I missed this story when it came out, but during the early stages of the war a Ukrainian colonel, discussing the stalled Russian offensive north of Kiev, essentially said the same thing as Merkel about the eight year window following the Minsk agreements.
The Ukrainian colonel told The Wall Street Journal: "The Russians thought they could break through and be in Kyiv in a couple of days. They didn't realize that we have learned how to wage war in the past eight years." (Business Insider)
One must wonder if Putin wishes he had conducted this war in 2015 instead.
Cracks in the dam
Patrick Wintour recently published an article in The Guardian that’s surprisingly realistic for that often hyperbolic publication.
In a little noticed intervention the former British prime minister Boris Johnson – seen as a bosom ally of Volodymyr Zelenskiy – made the startling statement that if Russian troops were returned to lands they held inside Ukraine before the 24 February invasion that would represent a basis for reopening talks between Ukraine and Russia. (The Guardian)
The implication here is that the return of Crimea should not be viewed as a precondition to a peace agreement. And Johnson isn’t the only person talking about this. Wintour mentions several unnamed diplomats, plus an article by Henry Kissinger making the same point.
Writing in the Spectator Henry Kissinger, the veteran diplomat, made a similar proposal, arguing Russia should only be required to disgorge territory gained since February this year. (The Guardian)
We’re all very curious to hear what’s included in “lands they held inside Ukraine before the 24 February invasion.” Since leaders in the west insist the Russians were already in southern Ukraine prior to the February invasion, does this mean they’re keeping those areas as well?
The fact that lots of folks are pointing out legitimate reasons why Crimea might remain part of Russia indicates a softening of the earlier hard line stance on the war.
European diplomats acknowledge Crimea’s special status. The Soviet leadership only ceded Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, and most of its population is Russian; many residents are retirees from the Black Sea navy. (The Guardian)
This is all very true - almost no one in Crimea wants to be a citizen of Ukraine.
Interlude: why are journalists afraid of maps?
Here’s yet another side note about how the staff at major news outlets seem unaware that Google Maps exists. One issue Wintour discusses is the re-opening of the canal carrying water to the Crimean peninsula:
At the start of the February 2022 invasion Russia recaptured the Kakhovka hydroelectric dam in southern Ukraine. The reservoir behind the Kakhovka dam allows water to flow down the 250-mile North Crimean canal, built in the Soviet era to supply fresh water from the Dnipro River to the arid areas of southern Ukraine and Crimea. (The Guardian)
Wintour is one of those journalists who have definitely picked a side. Notice that he’s using the romanization of the Ukrainian name of the river (Dnipro) despite the fact it has a name in English (Dnieper). It’s probably no surprise to the reader that I also wrote a blurb about that.
I’m not sure what Wintour means when he says the Russians “recaptured” the Kakhovka hydroelectric dam since presumably he views it as Ukrainian property, but otherwise this is basically accurate. But it isn’t where the water flow to Crimea was stopped - this was done by placing a small dam on the canal itself.
Once the full-scale Russian invasion started in February, Russian troops quickly reached Tavriisk, the town where the canal had been dammed, destroyed the dam and released 1.7m cubic metres of water from the Dnipro into Crimea. (The Guardian)
This part’s wrong. The town of Tavriisk is located on the bank of the Dnieper River where the canal starts (at the reservoir), but it’s clearly not where the canal was dammed.
Here’s the actual dam, about 110 km down the canal (70 km in a straight line) and right on the border of the Crimean and Kherson oblasts. The canal itself supplies water to more than just Crimea so it was blocked right on the border.
Obviously to ensure water to the peninsula the Russians will also need to control Tavriisk, but the push to Kakhovka accomplished different goals. There are only two railway bridges across the Dnieper River south of the city of Zaporizhzhia (so the lower 300 km of the river), one of which run across the Kakhovka dam. This railway line is important either for a Russian offensive across the river, or to stop Ukrainian supplies coming the other direction. As an added bonus the hydroelectric plant is on the southeast side of the river so the Russians control another 351 mW of the power grid.
I’m continually amazed at how little effort people will put into learning basic details of the country while opining about the war. Also, did you notice my clever use of “cracks in the dam?”
So where does the war go from here?
Zelensky continues to insist the only acceptable outcome is complete removal of all Russian forces from Ukraine and Crimea - something the Russians will resist with all their resources. But with the level of American backing we see currently a negotiated settlement seems only a distant possibility.
On the other hand, more western leaders are starting to talk about negotiation. Per The Wall Street Journal French President Macron has been discussing finding a way to reassure the Russians about their security.
Mr. Macron is walking a delicate line. He has already angered Ukraine and some of its allies by calling for the West to provide Russia with security guarantees as part of any negotiations to end the war in Ukraine and prevent the conflict from spreading across Europe. (WSJ)
Macron recognizes the legitimacy of Russia’s fear of NATO.
“This means that one of the essential points we must address—as President Putin has always said—is the fear that NATO comes right up to its doors, and the deployment of weapons that could threaten Russia,” Macron added. (WSJ)
Many western leaders seem to understand the war won’t end the way Zelensky wishes, but the Americans can’t afford their own loss of status if the Russians succeed. So they will keep pouring in weapons (and the American defense industry will make huge profits) until the Ukrainian people refuse to continue fighting.
The Russians can build more artillery shells than all of NATO, and although they don’t have all the fancy American equipment they will hold the upper hand - America isn’t directly involved in the war so those fancy stealth fighters and bombers are of no use.
The American military is great at small, contained conflicts where their technological advantage can be employed to greatest effect. But their equipment isn’t durable enough, and their output of basic things like shells isn’t nearly large enough, to enable the Ukrainians to win this war. Absent direct American involvement they cannot defeat the Russians.
[For example, an M1 Abrams tank uses so much fuel and requires so much maintenance that some U.S. military officials have already said they wouldn’t be useful to the Ukrainians. America has a more delicate military force than many people realize.]
What about Putin? After the Minsk agreements, can he trust whatever “assurances” he’s given by NATO members? It seems unlikely he can be convinced that any new agreement won’t just be Minsk 3 - a bid for time to rebuild the Ukrainian military and defense industry.
So the Russians will fortify, they will attack when they have the advantage, and they will continue to degrade the Ukrainian infrastructure. This will go on until the Ukrainian people have had enough of being the pawns in someone else’s proxy war. Let’s all hope some parts of Ukraine are still standing when that point is finally reached.
This is a war based on realpolitik, meaning practical objectives, rather than some idealized version of what we wish the world to be. But that perception of an ideal world is being used to propagandize the American people into unending support of a conflict instigated by their own government but which benefits the average American not at all.
Addendum: The joys of translating from a language you don’t actually speak
The text in the image in this article’s header uses the Greek letter lambda (Λ) which isn’t part of the formal Russian alphabet. It’s sometimes used, however, in place of El (Л) because in some typefaces the little hook at the bottom left of El (Л) isn’t very visible and the letter can be confused with Pe (П).
The image above, interestingly enough, uses both versions of El (Л and Λ). The city of Lugansk is spelled Луганск, and the abbreviation for the Lugansk People’s Republic (Луга́нская Наро́дная Респу́блика) uses the El character as well (ЛНР).
Google Translate does handle this, assuming you recognized the letter was Greek and choose the correct substitute on the Russian language keyboard they provide.
So if you didn’t know this little detail and therefore don’t know what letter to substitute you won’t be able to translate words using lambda (Λ).
Even more amusing, if you type the romanization of the word (posle instead of после) you will also get the correct translation (which is “after”). So you have a choice of using the Cyrillic spelling or the romanization (see this article for an explanation of romanization).
From https://www.britannica.com/topic/realpolitik:
“realpolitik, politics based on practical objectives rather than on ideals. The word does not mean “real” in the English sense but rather connotes “things”—hence a politics of adaptation to things as they are. Realpolitik thus suggests a pragmatic, no-nonsense view and a disregard for ethical considerations. In diplomacy it is often associated with relentless, though realistic, pursuit of the national interest.”
Following you it was a mistake that undeniably prolonged human sufferings when the USA heavily supported Sovietunion in World war 2. A proxy war at that moment as the USA was not yet at war with Germany. a quick win by Hitler would have less human suffering.